Orders of Local Divisions of Milan and Mannheim
These orders concern two different cases, namely the order dated December 12, 2025 regarding the case UPC CFI_766/2024 and the order dated December 1st, 2024 regarding the case UPC_CFI_820/2024.
In both cases, the UPC ordered that the service of the claim takes place via a publication on the webpage of the Unified Patent Court.
Background
In both cases a claimant filed an action against a defendant based in China. In the case of UPC CFI_766/2024, there was also a co-defendant located in Hong Kong.
The registry of the UPC initiated formal service under the Hague Service Convention according to the Rules of Procedure of the UPC by using the electronic system provided therefore by the People’s Republic of China.
In the case of UPC_CFI_820/2024 the recipient refused to accept the documents.
In the case UPC CFI_766/2024 the service was successful for the defendant based in Hong Kong, but the service to the defendant based in Shenzhen was rejected by the Chinese authority, with the following explanation: “Please use the full name “Hong Kong, China” whenever referring to Hong Kong in documents”, which was not indicated in the statement of claim.
According to Rule 275.1 RoP, a service by an alternative method or at an alternative place may be permitted by way of order, when a regular service, for example using the Hague Service Convention cited in Rule 274 RoP, could not be effected.
Further, on reasoned request by the claimant, the Court may order that steps already taken to bring the Statement of claim to the attention of the defendant by an alternative method or at an alternative place is good service (Rule 275.2 RoP).
Decisions of the Court of First Instance in Milan and Mannheim
The court decided in both cases on request of the claimants that the attempts to serve the claim to the defendants have been a good service in line with Rule 275.2 RoP and that the notification about this decision has to be published on the webpage of the UPC, so that the defendant can take note of the order.
The service is deemed to be effective as of the date of the respective orders.
Consequences
The short time limits for the defendant to present his case before the court start from the dates of the respective orders.
If the defendant does not react within the prescribed time limits, the court may issue at request of a party a decision by default (Article 37 UPCA and Rule 355 RoP), which is enforceable against the defendant.
This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.